I think perhaps I haven't been clear in defining what I mean by "sinister." I'm using the term fairly exactly--it traces back to the Latin sinister, which denotes the left hand. This imagery of right and left hand was assimilated in the prose of the early Roman rhetoricians to the imagery of light and dark, visible and invisible, working by main force in the open vs working by subtlety and subterfuge in the shadows, and so on, respectively. "Sinister," as I am using the term here, refers to undercurrents that are not very visible in the national conversation, but that are still consequential in terms of societal outcomes.
Consider one of the issues I raised: environmental destruction. It's only been very recently that articles on environmental destruction have received very much attention in the mainstream presses--NY Times, CNN, ABC, etc. We've been bombarded with news about climate change since the 1980s, but climate change is a very small threat compared to the fact that we have now destroyed something like one third to one half of the ecosystem since 1970, and at the rate we're going, human life will be unsustainable in a matter of decades. To know all of that, you have to do a lot of digging in academic journals, keep up with studies commissioned by the UN, and so on. The usual lineaments of the economy of public information simply do not distribute it.
Similarly, corporations have been engineering monopsony power for decades. But how often do we see articles about monopsony in the mainstream press? We see articles on the ups and downs of the various stock markets, people make noise from time to time about minimum wage and living wages, but the real problem is the practices companies use to short-circuit market principles that would ideally put upward pressure on wages, and in so doing, they creates themselves monopsonies. That's how oligarchies, and eventually, monarchies or other authoritarian regimes are created. Government power is gradually becoming less and less relevant as corporations start to control more and more of people's daily lives. And having been an employer myself, I'm well familiar with how the program works--it's intentional, it's downright evil, and it's entirely legal. It's also secret.
All of this, and more besides, is kept from becoming part of the national conversation, and it is tempting to think there is some grand overarching conspiracy behind it (to be clear, I do not know that there is, and do not claim that there is--merely that one could be forgiven for thinking so).
My point is that someone standing in, say, 1957 and thinking about the coming fight over racial discrimination and Jim Crow laws that took place in the 60s and 70s could point to advantages had by those who would eventually fight in favor of racial equality and a more liberal and just society. We are roughly at that same point, looking ahead to decades in which these newer issues will be fought out, and the sinister truth is that there are no advantages to be had by those who would fight against the growing power of corporations and the continued destruction of the environment. Which means that, very likely, George Orwell's vision for the future of the human race will be a fait accompli before anyone knows it.